Hacker News Reader

Comment by module0000 | Hacker News Reader

>> who do you consider be the authority?

That would be Richard Matthew Stallman, the proverbial OG in this entire field.

You will find that RMS detests "Open Source"[1]. He's more of a Free software guy, the distinction on user's freedom is important.

1.https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

I think OP meant in the spiritual sense, free software is the original "open-source". A better one, I'd argue, but that's a different discussion.

I was addressing OP's suggestion that RMS is the authority on "Open Source" (which was the question further up the thread). He'd rather have you use/contribute (to) Free software instead.

Yes, I understood that, I assume the OP meant that he is an authority on "open-source" in that "free software" was the original "open-source" and thus "open-source" has RMS a lot to thank for. Otherwise I agree.

It might be the original "open source" but it ISN'T open source, per the definition. Open Source was coined for software LONG AFTER the FSF had declared what free software meant.

Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source" is very subjective and not historically accurate.

> Open Source was coined for software LONG AFTER the FSF had declared what free software meant

I know, you COMPLETELY misunderstood my comment.

> Going back and saying "Well, RMS might have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source"

I don't think he meant open-source and I am not saying he did, as free software defines greater freedoms. I am not a big fan of open-source myself, much prefer free software.

What I am actually trying to say, is that "free-software" was the original way to share code and work on it collaboratively for the commons, ie the thing open-source got inspired by.

What I am saying, is that in certain sense, you could say that Ken Thompson has a grandfatherly hand in Linux, despite him technically not. It's a spiritual hand, if you will.

RMS has an ideal: All software should be free and open.

This doesn't work for businesses that need to profit from what they do. Keeping things proprietary, while benefiting from source-available software is impossible if a company has to release their source. Competition goes out the window.

So while RMS has a nice ideal, it doesn't generally apply.

> " Keeping things proprietary, while benefiting from source-available software is impossible"

That's a tragedy of the commons, not something any company is entitled to (BSD-style licenses excepted). Enjoying the benefits of an ecosystem while not contributing to it is not a thing to laud.

> So while RMS has a nice ideal, it doesn't generally apply.

...and here we are, with a MongoDB pulling a bait-and-switch on licensing because they want to have their cake and eat it. You shouldn't expect to only get the kudos (and higher adoption rate) that result from your open-source license and not run the risk of someone (possibly a competitor) forking your code. That is the price of admission into the open-source world.

Sure it does. I've worked in multiple growing for-profit companies that released all their software as (A/L)GPL.

It might not work with certain business models, but that's alright, others would fill their place.

ESR and O Reilly are the OGs for OSS, though they certainly owe a debt to RMS

Neither invented the term, they just marketed it, because it directly benefitted them.

Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute is the "OG" for the term "open source" as applied to software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com